IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of July 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.228/2022 (Filed on 28/10/2022)
Complainant : Sanjay. S,
Raghasudha House,
Moolavattom P.O,
Kottayam – 686 012.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. Samsung Electronics,
Srikanta Maple MIG 719,
A Sector Yelahanka,
Newtown, Petrol Bunk Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(By Adv: Manu.J. Varappally)
2. Samsung Service Centre,
First, KMC-XIII/312,
Adam Towers, Star Junction,
F7-8-9, Kottayam - 686 001.
3. MyG,
Thadathil Building,
Door No.KMC XII/777,
T.B Road, Thirunakkara P.O,
Kottayaam - 686 001.
O R D E R
SRI.MANULAL V.S, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant had purchased a SAMSUNG GALAXY M 31S mobile phone from the 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone and the 2nd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party. After 4 months from the date of purchase the mother board of the said phone became defective and the phone was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party to cure the defect. Though the 2nd opposite party assured that they will cure the defect and deliver the same to the complainant within a week, but they delivered the mobile phone to the complainant only after one month. The complainant who is a MSW student and preparing for the Civil Service examination had suffered much mental agony during this period. Later on in the month of October 2022 the said mobile phone started to show complaints and the said phone was again entrusted to the 2nd opposite party. This time also the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that mother board of the said phone became defective and told that the cost of repair would amounts to Rs.9,000/-. The opposite parties refused to repair the said phone under the warranty period which was offered by them at the time of purchase of the said phone by the complainant. The 3rd opposite party did not heed to the request of the complainant to rectify the mobile phone under the warranty. It is averred in the complaint that though he had spent Rs.20,670/- to purchase the said phone, due to the defects of the phone he did not enjoy the product. According to the complainant the above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and thereby he had suffered much hardships and loss. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to replace the said phone with a new phone which has the same specification or in an alternative to refund Rs.20,670/- along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as cost of this litigation.
After the admission of the complaint, notice was duly served to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties received the notice from the Commission they did not care to file version. Hence the opposite parties are declared as exparte.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 and A2 from his side.
Based on the contention of the complaint and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points :
(1) Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs ?
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
The specific case of the complainant is that he had purchased a SAMSUNG GALAXY M 31S mobile phone on 21/06/2021 which was manufactured by the Ist opposite party from the 3rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.20,670/-. Ext.A2 is the Tax Invoice issued by the 3rd opposite party on 21/06/2021 to the complainant for the price of the said mobile phone and it is proved by Ext.A2 that the complainant had paid Rs.20,670/- to the 3rd opposite party, being the price of the said mobile phone. According to the complainant the mother board of the said mobile phone became defective after 4 months from the date of purchase and the same was cured by the 2nd opposite party, who is the authorised service centre of the Ist opposite party. It is further averred in the complaint that during the month of October 2022, the said phone was again became defective and when it was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party, they informed to the complainant that the mother board of the said phone became defective again and the repairing cost would amounts to Rs.9,000/-. Ext.A1 is the acknowledgement of service request issued by the 2nd opposite party on 20/12/2021. It is proved by Ext.A1 that the complainant had entrusted the said mobile phone to the 2nd opposite party with a complaint of ‘’auto restart’’. The complainant alleged that though the said phone was under warranty the opposite parties refused to rectify the defect under the warranty. Though the complainant claims that the defect of the said mobile phone occurred during the warranty period, he did not produce the warranty card or any other document to prove that the warranty which was offered by the 1st opposite party was valid during the period of October 2022. However, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any contradictory evidence to prove that whether the said phone had any defect as alleged in the complaint, the allegation of the complainant that the mother board of the said phone became defective during the month of October 2022 remains unchallenged. Therefore the opposite parties are duty bound to rectify the defects of the said phone which was sold by them more than 12 months ago. Admittedly the complainant is a MSW student and preparing for civil service examination, he had suffered much mental agony and hardships. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a social welfare legislation which is intended to protect the interests of the consumers from the deceptive and unfair trade practices from the traders and service providers. Keeping it in mind and considering the nature and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
(a)We hereby direct the Ist and 2nd opposite parties to rectify the defects of the SAMSUNG GALAXY M 31S mobile phone of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order at free of cost.
(b) We hereby direct the Ist and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of Ist and 2nd opposite parties.
(c) We hereby further direct the First and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant.
The First and 2nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply this order within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of July, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
Ext. A1 - Acknowledgement of service request dated
20/12/2021 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A2 - Tax Invoice dated 21/06/2021 for Rs.20,670/-
issued by the 3rd opposite party
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
